Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1887-02-18
THE FISHERIES QUESTION.


by Minister fntlpS.
I've official CORE, pOndcnCe in relation
to he treatment of American fishing YES
sells and the fishing troubles generally,
furnished to Congress 10y The secretary
of state is quite too volumlnous for our
columns. We copy enough of it 10 show
that the diguiird, firm AMI pronounced
manner in which United STATES Minister
Phelps has SET forth the American side of
the question:
In Il letter to Minister Phelps from the
Earl of Iddesleigh, dated November 30,
it is stated that her maiesty's government
earnestly desires some equitable settle
ment of the controversy, ana That II Is
with feelings of disappointment that
there is moi found in ~ previous note from
Mr. Phelps any indication Of II wish ON
| the part of the United States government
to enter upon negotiations "based on the
| principle OF mutual concessions -
On December Ii Lord lddrSleigh, in
communication to Minister Phelps, trans
mit- the apology of the Canadian govern
ment FOR having hauled down the flag Of
the Marion Grimes. Abiding to the
seizure of the Everitt steel, Lord ldles-
| leigh says "Hcr najcstN's government
greatly regrets that incidents alluded to
should occur, and they can only renew
the ASSURANCES conveyed to you in my
note Of the Both ult., that while firmly
resolved to uphold the undOuuted treaty
rights OF her maie-ty'S North American
subjects in regard to the fisheries, they
Will also equally maintain tue undpubled
| rights of the United States fishermen to
obtain shelter in Canadian ports under
such restrictions as may be necessary To
| prevent their abusing the privileges re
served to them by the treaty.
On January % Minister Phelps writes to
| Lord Salisbury rs follows:
1t seems now very important that. he.
fore the commencement of another fish
| ing season, a distinct understanding
| should be reached between the United
States government and that of her ma
| jesty, relative TO the course to be pur
sued by the Canadian authorities toward
| American vessels. Ii Is not without sur
prise that have read Lord Iddpsleigh's
| remark In note above mentioned, refer
ring to the treaty of ISIS, tnat her mHjes-
| tvs government have not rs yet been in
| formed III what respect the construction
| placed upon that instrument by the gov
| eminent of the United States differs
from their own. Had his lordship peru-ed
more at entiNely my note to his predeces.
sOr IN Office. Lord ROSeherY, under date of
| June , lSSG, TO which reference was made
IN my note to Lord lddeSlelgh OF Septem-
btr, lNN6, | think he could not have failed
| to apprchend distinctly the construct ION
]
of the United States COntended, and the
reasons and arguments up N which it is
| founded. | HAY again to respectfully
refer your lord>hip to my note to Lord
ROsebery of June ,, lsS6, for very full,
and hope clear, exposition of the ground
taken 10y the United states government
on that point. 1t Is unnecessary TO repea
| 1t and | am unable to add to it,
In the present case the facts cOnsttu-
ting the alleged infraction 10y the vessel
seized are not i'll dispute, except some cir
CunstauceS of alleged aggraVatiOu, not
material to the validity of the seizure.
The original ground of the seizure was
| the purchase by the master of the vessel
of small quantity of bait from the in
| habitants of Nova Scotia, to be used in
| fishing. This purchase Is not denied by
the owners of the vessel And the United
States government insist First, that
| such an act Is not in violation Of the
! treaty of ISIS, and, second, that no then
| existing statute in Great Britain or Cana
| da authorized any proceedings against the
vessel for such an act even If 1t could be
| regarded as in violation of the terms of
the treaty. And no such statute has been
as yet produced.
In response to the charge brought
against the Adams" and upon which
many other vessels have been seized-that
of a technical violation Of the customs
| act, in emitting to report to the custom
]
| port (and in some instances where the YES
| sci seized was not within several miles of
! the pOrD, the United states government
| claim, While not admitting that the omls
sion to report was Il technical transgres-
| sion of the act that even if it were, no
harm having been done or intended, the
proceedings against the vessel for an mad
vertauCe OF that sort were in high de-
gree harsh, unreasonable and unfrieudly.
Especially, rs for many years no such
effect hai been given to the act in respect
to the fishing vessels, and no previous no.
tice Of the change in its construction had
been promulgated.
Mr.. Phelps then refers to Lord Iddes
leigli's comment upon his (Mr. Phelps's y
failure to reply to the arguments and
points in controversy contained in the re-
port of the Canadian minister of marine
and fisheries. Ga this point he says
Inasmuch as Lord lddesieigh and his
predecessor, Lord Rose berry, have declined
altogether on the part of her majesty
government to discuss this question until
the cases in which they arise shall have
been iudiciallY decided, and az the very
elaborate arguments on the subject pre-
viously submitted by the United State,
government remain, therefore, without
reply, it is not easy To perceive why further
discussion on the part of the United state
should be expected. 50 soon as her ma
iesty's government consents to enter upOr
the consideration of the points involved
any suggestion it may advance VIII re
celve immediate and respectful attention
, on the part of the United States. Unit
then further argument on the suhjec
! would seem to be neither consistent d
. proper still less can the United State
, government consent to be drawn AT an,
- time into discussion Of the subject witt
: the Colonial government of Canada. Tn
treaty in question and all ntematona
relations arising out OF il exist betweel